Causes of the Great War

[ChristopherPerrien]

Imagine that! Things were this simple, and yet even an anglophile like Massie was able to write 900 pages about it! If you really read this book closely,

You will realized that I am right. , Of course there were tons of secondary
reasons for the war , but the primary reason was that spoiled brat Willie the Warlord and all those clips he had on his shoulder. Perhaps this may seem simple but it is/was just symptomactic of how closely tied most nations were by having leaders who could be considered members of the English Royal family, (i.e. some relation to Victoria) and the residual influence these people still had at the start of the 20th century.

Call it a family feud, it did mange to destroy the idea of "Royalty" having or inherenting real political or military power in Europe.

Besides why get mad about it, "Hang the Kaiser" never happened, Wilhelm lived a ife of luxury his whole life very different from the millions of his German "subjects" he managed to get slaughtered in the trenches for all his war-mongering. Aw! he lost a crown he had no business wearing.

Exactly the point I don't blame Germany at all for WWI, I blame an arrogant, conceited, spoiled,clueless, idle-rich, wimp, want-a-be soldier
named Wilhelm II.

Dig him up and Hang him!!!!!!

[British Free Corps]

In truth, far too much emphasis is placed on the role of Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm. It is sheer lunacy to state that the German Empire was the sole nation repsonsible for the outbreak of the Great War. Germany declared war on Russia, not on Great Britain nor on France. This declaration was, in turn, a response to the Russian declaration of war on Germany's ally, Austria. Interventionism and entangling alliances must stand near the top of list for causes, and Germany was in no way alone in this field.

1. Austria declares war on Serbia, we all know why.
2. Russia declares war on Austria, as an act of assistance for the "Slavic brothers".
3. Germany declares war on Russia, in accordance to the Triple Alliance Pact, which dragged the Empire into a regional conflict.
4. France declares war on Germany. Why? Was it because of the Triple Entente Cordiale? This was not a solid pact, merely a loose agreement - they were not honour-bound to intervene, unlike Germany in the Triple Alliance. Petty hatred was, in my opinion, a substantial motivation.
5. Great Britain declares war on Germany, in accordnace with the 1839 Treaty of London.

There you have it. Obligations, binds and interventionist alliances...

Regards,
Matt

[ChristopherPerrien]

Sorry BFC it ain't a full moon right now.

Again the demands wanted by Austria from Serbia were to extreme, they were suggested for the simple reason that Wilhelm thought he could look
like some "high and mighty" crusader for the royalty of Europe against the forces of anarchy and regicide. He thought by looking so regal and fierce he would look good to his "cliche" and face down one of his "uncles" Czar Nicholas at the same time this action he figured would get him a measure of respect frome his english royal relatives and and other royal families of Europe. The war started because when Wilhelm, "threw down the Guantlet( his words)", his Uncle Nicholas did not back down.

The sad fact I suppose is Wilhelm had no idea his uncle could not back down. The Russian empire was tetering anyway,but if Nicholas had let his nephew "have his way with Serbia" the Russia empire would have fallen a little faster than it did anyway,(1914) instead of 1917. This only shows more about the lack of understanding by the German government and Wihelm of the international situation at the time.

God advisors or bad advisors Wilhelm would never listen to advice that disagreed with his world view.

As I said Wilhelm had a inferiority complex , and the more he tried to look like a fierce Prussian warlord, the sillier he look to the real regal figures of Europe. It finally added up to WWI.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Sorry BFC it ain't a full moon right now.

Again the demands wanted by Austria from Serbia were too extreme, they were suggested for the simple reason that Wilhelm thought he could look like some "high and mighty" crusader for the royalty of Europe against the forces of anarchy and regicide when the extreme demands of the Austrian (Holy Roman) Empire he sanctioned were either accepted or refused.

He thought that by facing down one of his "uncles" Czar Nicholas would at the same time by this action he would get a measure of respect from his English royal relatives and and other royal families of Europe. The war started because when Wilhelm, "threw down the Gauntlet"( his words),
his Uncle Nicholas did not back down.

The sad fact I suppose is Wilhelm had no idea his uncle could not back down. The Russian empire was tetering anyway, but if Nicholas had let his nephew "have his way with Serbia" the Russia empire would have fallen a little faster than it did anyway,(1914) instead of 1917. This only shows more about the lack of understanding by the German government and Wihelm of the international situation at the time.

Good advisors or bad advisors, Wilhelm would never listen to advice that disagreed with his world view, for long.

As I said Wilhelm had a inferiority complex , and the more he tried to look like a fierce Prussian warlord, the sillier he look to the real regal figures of Europe. It finally added up to WWI.

[dead-cat]

In truth, far too much emphasis is placed on the role of Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm. It is sheer lunacy to state that the German Empire was the sole nation repsonsible for the outbreak of the Great War. Germany declared war on Russia, not on Great Britain nor on France. This declaration was, in turn, a response to the Russian declaration of war on Germany's ally, Austria. Interventionism and entangling alliances must stand near the top of list for causes, and Germany was in no way alone in this field.

1. Austria declares war on Serbia, we all know why.
2. Russia declares war on Austria, as an act of assistance for the "Slavic brothers".
3. Germany declares war on Russia, in accordance to the Triple Alliance Pact, which dragged the Empire into a regional conflict.
4. France declares war on Germany. Why? Was it because of the Triple Entente Cordiale? This was not a solid pact, merely a loose agreement - they were not honour-bound to intervene, unlike Germany in the Triple Alliance. Petty hatred was, in my opinion, a substantial motivation.
5. Great Britain declares war on Germany, in accordnace with the 1839 Treaty of London.

while i agree with you, i have to do a little nitpicking

correct order of events:

28. july Austria declares war on Serbia
1. august germany declares war on russia
3. august germany declares war on france
4. august britain declares war on germany
6. august austria-hungary declares war on russia (they sure took their sweet time)
12. august great britain declares war on austria-hungary
13. august france declares war on austria-hungary

seems like the alliances thing wasn't all that automated. it took austria-hungary 5 days and a few angry german telegramms to declare war on russia.

germany declared war on russia technically because of the russian mobilization, otherwise they'd lose their mobilization speed advantage. not because russia declared war on A-H, since they simply didn't. they wern't ready yet, so it was in their interest to delay military operations as much as possible.
also france didn't declare war on germany, it was viceversa, after france didn't give a satisfactory response to the german ultimatum.

not that the order would really matter, germany couldn't afford to waste any time so they declared war first. but after the war this was used in the "war guilt" affair.

[Beowulf]

Sorry BFC it ain't a full moon right now.

Again the demands wanted by Austria from Serbia were too extreme, they were suggested for the simple reason that Wilhelm thought he could look like some "high and mighty" crusader for the royalty of Europe against the forces of anarchy and regicide when the extreme demands of the Austrian (Holy Roman) Empire he sanctioned were either accepted or refused.

He thought that by facing down one of his "uncles" Czar Nicholas would at the same time by this action he would get a measure of respect from his English royal relatives and and other royal families of Europe. The war started because when Wilhelm, "threw down the Gauntlet"( his words),
his Uncle Nicholas did not back down.

The sad fact I suppose is Wilhelm had no idea his uncle could not back down. The Russian empire was tetering anyway, but if Nicholas had let his nephew "have his way with Serbia" the Russia empire would have fallen a little faster than it did anyway,(1914) instead of 1917. This only shows more about the lack of understanding by the German government and Wihelm of the international situation at the time.

Good advisors or bad advisors, Wilhelm would never listen to advice that disagreed with his world view, for long.

As I said Wilhelm had a inferiority complex , and the more he tried to look like a fierce Prussian warlord, the sillier he look to the real regal figures of Europe. It finally added up to WWI.

Christopher, it might help lend some credibility to your highly opinionated hypotheses if you would get some of your facts straight. Nicky was not Willy's uncle. The two were most directly related through Willy's Great Grandfather, Frederick William III, who was also Nicky's Great Great Grandfather. Nicky was therefore Willy's second cousin once removed. He was also nine years younger than Wilhelm, and of the generation following. Wilhelm was more closely releated to Nicky's wife, Alexandra. The two shared grandparents in the persons of Victoria and Albert, and were therefore first cousins.

Kind Regards,

B.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Excuse me, my mistake, yes they were cousins, I forgot the relations of Victoria's grandkids/maraiges to each other. It has been a few years since I read all this. The "logic" of Wilhelm's actions are still the same, no matter the exact family relation.

Call it an opinionated arguement, does not matter it is a simple fact.
Without the Kaiser, WWI does not happened.

[Tim Smith]

Wrong. Germany wanted a war in 1914.

Why? Because before 1914 the German General Staff had, rightly or wrongly, convinced themselves that Russia and France would attack and crush Germany in five or ten years time if Germany didn't start a preemptive war now.

France and Russia together are stronger than Germany - even if Germany gets Austria-Hungary to help, the French and Russians are still a lot stronger numerically. And Germany couldn't reliably count on Italy, Turkey, or Britain to help her if she was attacked.

The biggest advantage that Germany had over Russia and France prior to 1914 was that she could mobilise quicker than France and a lot quicker than Russia, because of her excellent railway system. Therefore Germany could theoretically beat France before Russia could bring her full weight to bear on East Prussia.

But Russia was modernising her army and building railways very quickly. In a few short years, the mobilisation advantage would be gone. Once that happened, Germany could not afford to use the Schlieffen Plan anymore because an enormous Russian army would be overrunning East Prussia and swarming into Germany long before the German army could beat the French. As it was, even in 1914, the Russian army mobilised and attacked East Prussia considerably faster than the Germans were expecting. Instead the Germans would have to go on the strategic defensive and the German generals hated that idea, and thought that they could never win that way.

Finally, in 1914, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Turkey, Germany's three 'allies' were gradually weakening economically and militarily, while France and Russia were growing stronger.

Therefore, if (and that's a big IF) a war in Europe was inevitable, as the Germans believed that it was, a war sooner rather than later made a lot of sense from Germany's viewpoint.

[James McBride]

Wrong. Germany wanted a war in 1914.

Why? Because before 1914 the German General Staff had, rightly or wrongly, convinced themselves that Russia and France would attack and crush Germany in five or ten years time if Germany didn't start a preemptive war now.

France and Russia together are stronger than Germany - even if Germany gets Austria-Hungary to help, the French and Russians are still a lot stronger numerically. And Germany couldn't reliably count on Italy, Turkey, or Britain to help her if she was attacked.

The biggest advantage that Germany had over Russia and France prior to 1914 was that she could mobilise quicker than France and a lot quicker than Russia, because of her excellent railway system. Therefore Germany could theoretically beat France before Russia could bring her full weight to bear on East Prussia.

But Russia was modernising her army and building railways very quickly. In a few short years, the mobilisation advantage would be gone. Once that happened, Germany could not afford to use the Schlieffen Plan anymore because an enormous Russian army would be overrunning East Prussia and swarming into Germany long before the German army could beat the French. As it was, even in 1914, the Russian army mobilised and attacked East Prussia considerably faster than the Germans were expecting. Instead the Germans would have to go on the strategic defensive and the German generals hated that idea, and thought that they could never win that way.

Finally, in 1914, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Turkey, Germany's three 'allies' were gradually weakening economically and militarily, while France and Russia were growing stronger.

Therefore, if (and that's a big IF) a war in Europe was inevitable, as the Germans believed that it was, a war sooner rather than later made a lot of sense from Germany's viewpoint.

I made this exact same argument on another thread not too long ago. I think that not only Germany felt this way, but that the general feeling in Europe was that war was inevitable. Until some change was made in the attitudes of the nations towards each other, the chance of avoiding a general war seeems small.

[ChristopherPerrien]

I could change the dates in Mr. Smith's reply from 1914 to to 1940 and they sound exactly like the the reasons for WWII, which is why I can't buy the arguements.

The only differnce is Russia's military and government was tetering mess in 1914 much more than it was under stalin in 1940. Which in itself makes hash of this theory. In fact in WWI Germany effectively beat Russia and caused France's army to mutiny, only Britain and America's developing involvement in WWI actually beat Germany in WWI.

A case for pre-emptive attacks can always be made, it is the old "do unto others before they do it you", common sense perhaps but not fitting. Generic answers for specific times and people's actions in history have to fit better than that.

[Tim Smith]

No, Christopher, you are completely wrong to suggest this. In 1914 France and Russia had an alliance - in 1939 and 1940 they didn't.

The causes of WW1 are entirely different to the causes of WW2.

The fact that Germany (with Austria and Turkey's help) defeated Russia in 1917 and almost defeated France, does not prove that had the war started in 1919 or 1924, the Russian army would not have been much more efficient in its mobilisation, and probably better equipped as well. This is about rapidly improving technology in Russia. The German fears of defeat in a 'possible' later war were justified. The point is not that there definitely would be a war between 1919 and 1924 - but that the Germans believed there would be.

I don't know where you get the idea that Imperial Russia was so unstable that it was on the verge of collapse in 1914. Had that been the case Russia could not have sustained a largely unsuccessful war for three years. Certainly there were social and political problems, worse than in any other major power except Austria-Hungary, but that does not affect the mobilisation and fighting capabilities of the Imperial Russian Army to any significant degree in 1914. Only much later would these problems start to affect the outcome of the war.

I could change the dates in Mr. Smith's reply from 1914 to to 1940 and they sound exactly like the the reasons for WWII, which is why I can't buy the arguements.

The only differnce is Russia's military and government was tetering mess in 1914 much more than it was under stalin in 1940. Which in itself makes hash of this theory. In fact in WWI Germany effectively beat Russia and caused France's army to mutiny, only Britain and America's developing involvement in WWI actually beat Germany in WWI.

A case for pre-emptive attacks can always be made, it is the old "do unto others before they do it you", common sense perhaps but not fitting. Generic answers for specific times and people's actions in history have to fit better than that.

[Windward]

To my opinion, the Boer War is same important as the naval race, for GB's attitude to join the Franco-Russian League. The high and horrible cost and price of Boer War made British politicians began to worry about the cost of wars overseas, in Guiana, in Morocco, in Egypt, in Tibet, in Persia and India, etc. Think about the Fashoda Incident! Britain and France were almost dig up the hatchet in 1899. The most important thing to the British Empire after 1900 was not expanding territory any more, but to DEFEND their colonies, their empire, from Russian or French or German threat. Britain never raise another war to conquer lands and expand their territory after the second Boer war. So British facing a dilemma. Who is the biggest enemy of the empire? Not Germany and its medium fleet (the formal naval race not began yet in 1905), but the Franco-Russian League. That's why Anglo-Japanese Treaty signed on Jan 30 1902, right before the Russo-Japanese War broke. But why didn't Britain sign a same treaty with Germany as Sir Joseph Chamberlain suggested in 1900? Why there was not a Anglo-Teuton-Japanese "Tripartite Pact" then? Because such a treaty with Germany means Britain will become enemy of France and Russia, two biggest countries who hold the second and the third biggest fleet (right before 1904) and 23% of the land area in the world. (Japan was far from Europe and the Anglo-Japanese treaty was less involved into the complex European affairs). And it also means British Empire will facing a global war in Afghanistan, Persia, Middle East and Africa. They could not afford this. The Kaiserreich would be a weaker enemy. So Great Britain made his choice, in the Morocco crisis 1905, and joined the Franco-Russian League in 1907.

[Lord Gort]

Chancellor Bethmann admitted to a friend that he slep un easily at night thinking of the incredible power of Russia in a few years.


However the war council of 1912 has to much put on it. There were many other reasons for the meeting of the council.


Has anyone heard of General Limon Von Sanders?

I have been reading thousands of pages on this subject for the last two weeks and I found a gem of a quote last week from Winston Churchill in a letter to Lloyd George in 1913.....

"We have all the obligations of an alliance without its advantages"



regards,

[Windward]

Has anyone heard of General Limon Von Sanders?

He didn't act as an important role in the Ottoman Empire, as Kaiser Welheim hoped. Turkey's decision of attending the war was made by the three Pashas. Sanders was only a good commander, not a qualified and influential adviser.

[Qvist]

I think the issue with German colonies, naval expansion and so on were mainly psychological rather than material. Germany's position after 1871 was ideal - time was on her side, with each passing year she dominated Europe and particularly her neighbours more and more economically, no other major power had a quarrel with her except isolated France, who could never be a real threat unaided. Rationally speaking, all factors dictated preservation of the status quo. The colonies were irrelevant to the larger issues of security and economic expansion, for a high seas fleet there was no good rational reason.

But to the Germans who grew up in this new powerful empire, immensely proud of their nation, brimming with energy; security, stability and trade cannot have appeared as a very appealing prospect. This was Kaiser Wilhelm's generation and the following - they were not sorry to see Bismarck go, as far they were concerned he had nothing more to offer them after having performed his historic task, which Bismarck regarded as the end and they as the beginning. It's rather striking how much German policy seems to have been dominated by strong but vague aspirations the national leaders knew they could not ignore even in the cases where they did not share them.

cheers